This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

It's OK because they are peace Officers. Swat teams were designed to get the perp without losing LEO lives. Their mission is to take the perp alive.

Drones, on the other hand, should only be used for surveillance. They should never fire upon US citizens. That would be a travesty of justice.

I agree with this. Drones are R/C aircraft essentially. Just a little more high tech. No need to freak on that. Obviously no shooting needed. That is a flagrant violation of rights.

I also know several LEOs in gang units and swat teams. I'd be very careful about limiting their technology. Certain "military" technology has been key in saving lives. 40mm tear gas grenades Smoking suspects out? Armored vehicles allowing close in vehicles for raids? EOD bots? Super accurate rifles? .223s that provide a stronger punch than a 9mm sub. Tactics that have been brought back from Iraq or Afghanistan for peace keeping operations? Things like sonic weaponry and lasers? I don't want to see police limited to .38 specials and a wooden baton...or even worse...pepper spray an a baton.

I understand the position the ACLU I coming from, but I would also post a strong word of caution on what exactly they plan on limiting in terms of technology.

Re: ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

What does "militarizing" the police mean? If it means they are arming themselves better than the dangerous criminals they face, I'm all for it.

It means that they are being given armored vehicles, military-grade uniforms, and military-grade weapons in order to deal with criminals.

However, there is a great difference between "dangerous criminals" and petty criminals. And all too often the police are using their military-grade hardware against the latter, which is an overuse of force.

Dan Carlin - a podcaster whose political show "Common Sense with Dan Carlin" - did an episode where he talks about the militarization of the police force. And most of this militarization has to do with drug laws.

What it is is that private property suspected to be used in drug crimes can be impounded by the police and then auctioned off. And for a suspect to get his property back he has to the sue the government - rather than the government first finding him guilty and then auctioning off this impounded property.

What this means is that police forces can, essentially, steal the private property of suspects - not convicts but just suspects - of drug crimes in order to acquire more money for themselves.

It should also be noted that drug laws are basically the only kind of laws that the federal government provides money and equipment to local law enforcement to enforce. Thus, the federal government provides economic incentives to police forces to go after drug suspects - and those are the only kinds of suspects that police have economic incentives to go after.

Also, the Patriot Act was passed in order to go after terrorist suspects, and law enforcement were given federal funds to set up anti-terrorist squads. But it should be noted that the Patriot Act has been asserted by the government in something like 16 terrorist cases while it has been used to prosecute at least a thousand drug cases. And that those anti-terrorist police squads have been slowly dual-roled into anti-drug efforts until they are used more against drug criminals than against possible terrorists.

These are all issues because abridgements of constitutional rights to go after terrorist suspects have been expanded to include those suspected of drug crimes - not those convicted but merely those who are suspects. It also highlights potential abuses of law enforcement since they can accuse of any citizen of being a drug criminal in order to impound that citizen's private property and make that law enforcement agency wealthier.

So you are right in that the police should be well armed against dangerous criminals. But what it's turning into is the police arming themselves to take the property of suspects in order to loot their wealth.

Re: ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

The timing of this comes right as Rand Paul spoke for 13 hours as part of the filibuster to block Obama's CIA nomination:

We need transparency on these issues. Our POTUS should not be overriding the Constitution. Our police should not be militarizing. The American People are not the enemy, they are the foundation of this country. Our rights MUST remain enshrined and maintained. Any of our lawmakers who refuse to place that as the highest priority of the United States is a traitor.

In today's information age we should have access to all of this information on the web, at our fingertips. Is this our country and our government? Or are we subjects and serfs who are lorded over and told not to worry what the police are doing?